Open Source Reprap contract

There are many open source licenses (see [en.wikipedia.org])

Which one does the reprap use for it's firmware / design ?

Should there be a reprap specific license?
e.g.
This object falls under the REPRAP OPEN SOURCE License

Should things created by the reprap automatcially have to be open source?
That is if you sell it you provide the "source code" ie CAD file.

Should we be asking Richard Stallman in for advice?

Should we have a bill of rights / set of freedoms like Free_software has i.e

Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program for any purpose.

Freedom 1: The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish.

Freedom 2: The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor.

Freedom 3: The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements (and modified versions in general) to the public, so that the whole community benefits.

Just wondered what people thought

regards

Stephen

[en.wikipedia.org]

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2010 01:29AM by stephen george.

GPL. That way we're cross compatible with everything else that's GPL.

---

There are way too many opensource licenses out there. I think Laurence Lessig may regret muddying the waters as badly as he did.

As it is, I may have botched a donation of renderings of gears CAD-drawings by complicating matters - explaining that they would have to be LGPL, maybe.

---

Should things created by the reprap automatcially have to be open source?
That is if you sell it you provide the "source code" ie CAD file.

Blerg. Unenforceable, coercive, and ... ick. People would either avoid using RepRaps or ignore the license, while thinking we were being obnoxious.

---

Do you like shopping online?
[cgi.ebay.com]

Agreed with Sebastien.

As for providing the CAD files, Reprap does provide them, but the lack of any really good open-source parametric CAD programs is an accessibility issue. I think the development of programs like FreeCAD should be a massive boost to open-source hardware engineering in the future, the way that, for example, Eclipse has been a massive boost to the open-source software engineering community.

I know nothing about licensing issues, but fully support the open source
nature of Reprap and will help wherever possible in the collective effort, but as soon as any commercialism becomes apparent, I am out of here.
In the past I have felt cheated when a forum or community introduces the money aspect.

"any commercialism becomes apparent" seems a little strong to me. Redhat with fedora and Centos, Canoncial with Ubuntu. I think commercial cooperation is vital to the sustainability and expansion of any open source project attempting to become mainstream. That being said there are certainly plenty of lines being crossed.

What about adding a "build and build alike" component to the license? With GPL if you make changes and distribute the source you are required to license your changes under the GPL. That works well with software but I think because of the physical elements of reprap there is another dimension missing. What about requirement that if you build a reprap you are obligated to produce a set of parts contributed back to a central organization or something along those lines? That could greatly expand the pool of implementers and resolve the single largest barrier to entry with the system. It wouldn't have to be rigidly enforced, an honor system and a strong community could self-police it.

Without a doubt that idea is controversial but it didn't seem like it has been discussed much before...

johnrpm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I know nothing about licensing issues, but fully
> support the open source
> nature of Reprap and will help wherever possible
> in the collective effort, but as soon as any
> commercialism becomes apparent, I am out of here.
> In the past I have felt cheated when a forum or
> community introduces the money aspect.


Unfortunately commercialism and captialism are a fact of the world we live in, too many people and not enough stuff.

As a result people's time and resources become a need to acquire some of this stuff, through various trading commodoties (i.e. money), due to, firstly the need to survive and secondly to be better than the next person, which derive from our mating instincts developed over millions of years of evolution.

As much as some would like to be in a position to provide for everyone equally, until this secondary aspect of human nature is overcome by some means, commercialism and capitalism will remain.

The outcome of this is that stuff, time and resources cost money and this money must come from somewhere.

I think a good analogy can be drawn with use of GCC.

RepRap is a hardware GCC - it compiles source (model files), and produces an application (widget)

GCC can be used to compile proprietary or commercial applications. If you use source in the GCC standard libraries, you must to provide source for those libraries, and provide an interface (typically via linking to shared libraries) that would allow others to modify that source and link it to your application. The source to GCC specifies that if you modify GCC source, and build a derivative version, you must provide all source for the derivative when you give GCC to others in any form, whether for money or for free.

RepRap should be allowed to build proprietary or commercial applications. If you use model data in the RepRap library, you should have to provide model files for those libraries, and provide an hardware interface specification to your proprietary or commercial hardware device that would allow others to modify those open model files and attach/use them with your proprietary device. The model files defining a RepRap machine should specify that if you modify them and build a derivative device, you must provide all model files for the derivative if you provide it to others in any form, whether for money or for free.

It doesn't seem very complex or iffy to me, and seems like it follows the spirit of the open source movement... am I missing anything? The only thing that seems questionable is exactly how do you create a 'shared library' for components that are open source to be used in a proprietary device?

I release the stuff I do under a BSD license.

[en.wikipedia.org]

It's freer, cleaner and less fraught with the possibility for litigation.

Mind, very little that I do directly, or even indirectly derives from Reprap stuff, so there isn't any conflict.

---

-------------------------------------------------------

Hell, there are no rules here - we're trying to accomplish something.

Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.

Thomas A. Edison

Forrest Higgs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I release the stuff I do under a BSD license.

Indeed. The BSD license is a bit more 'commercial friendly' than GPL.

Some people feel offended if others take the work they've provided, leverage it, and achieve large profits, after closing off any further development by others on derivatives originating from the original author's work -- they want to ensure those companies are legally obligated to provide others individuals or companies the same freedom the author gave to that company as it relates to the work they provided to them (whether for fee or for free).

Personally, I'm not offended by profit and 'greed' driven market forces, so long as there exist reasonable assurance against fraud and monopoly.. I'd like available the same option should I have opportunity. I'm not sure why some people become angry by 'profit, greed, etc.'... I suppose it is a disagreement on what privileges and/or rights exist, or the priorities when comparing them.

I generally prefer the BSD license over the GPL as well. Why does open source need to be at war with commercialism? I prefer to build something that can benefit as many people as possible, regardless of whether those people happen to share my philosophical views. That said, I'm happy playing within the community under the GPL if that is what is generally preferred.

I am strongly against requiring the GPL for parts created by a RepRap. This makes it less valuable as a tool. If GIMP had this restriction (that images created by it had to be under the GPL) it would mean that people couldn't use it professionally. Imagine I were a graphics designer and Disney approached me to make a poster for their next movie using their copyrighted characters. I could not use open source for this if the license was too restrictive. If GCC had this restriction (that complied programs had to be under the GPL) there wouldn't be as many people using it professionally and there would be far fewer contributors and evangelists.

Imagine that I have some machine, like a paper printer that broke. I might be able to convince the manufacturer to send me a model of the broken part, but only if I sign a NDA. I couldn't print that on a RepRap if the license then required that I release the model. This would be a casualty of the war between commercialism and open source. It breaks my heart when tools are crippled for philosophical reasons alone.

> as soon as any commercialism becomes apparent, I am out of here.

I'd like to encourage anyone who ever gets upset with the direction RepRap is taking to try and form a coalition of RepRappers to create a fork without the major flaw rather than abandon it all together. This is the one threat that makes it impossible for someone to take advantage of their leadership position in an open source community.

---

---

Darwin clone, Gen 2 electronics, Arduino Duemilanove w/ AtMega328, 5D Firmware, Pinchwheel extruder
[www.codeerrors.com]

Greetings all,

It's apparent that many of us have strongly held opinions on what license(s) they do/don't like. In a group effort, this diversity of opinion seems unavoidable. I'd like to point out that having different parts of the reprap "intellectual property" under *different* (sometimes conflicting) licenses makes the whole less usable -- and likely profitable only for the lawyers -- something I would like to avoid!

If memory serves, Professor Boyer released the original designs under the GPL. Would somebody please check me on that? (And what version?)

While anybody who distributes a truly original design (whether code, a CAD file, or a drawing/photo/video) is free to put it under whatever license they choose, please don't multiply licenses beyond necessity*. I won't even attempt to venture into what might/might not constitute a legally non-derivative work, in the context of reprap. One could argue that virtually all of it is derived from Professor Boyer's research, which is (in turn) based on earlier work in CAD and additive fabrication.

Similarly, if you make an improvement or variation on someone else's work, *please* stick with the same license as the original!
IANAL, but I strongly suspect that having a derivative work released under a different license than the original is a recipe for all kinds of legal headaches -- and that can only detract from overall reprap progress.

At the risk of muddying the waters further, I note that most of the licenses mentioned were written for intellectual property, specifically software. What the terms of those licenses mean, when applied to either design information (CAD files, schematics, actual parts) is IMHO rather unclear. One could argue that processing a CAD file through skeinforge (or the reprap host software) is analogous to compiling source code. Similarly, one could argue that assembling mechanical parts into a working whole is "linking" them -- a term used in the GPL/LGPL with specific restrictions in those licenses. And similarly for wiring up several circuit designs, released under different licenses. How will all this play out? -- probably not well, if we have conflicting licenses and/or a lawyer becomes involved.

Personally, I have no problem with the makerBot or RepMan teams making a profit on what they sell, Nor (so far) has Professor Boyer or his University. I hope we can keep it that way, and I submit that sticking with the minimum number of licences (or at least non-conflicting ones) is important.

(*) With appologies to William of Occam

---

Larry Pfeffer,

My blog about building repstrap Cerberus:
[repstrap-cerberus.blogspot.com]

Aside from the self-fabricating nature of a RepRap, and all that, this is a bikeshed problem.

[en.wikipedia.org]

---

GPL seems to work for lots of people, and significantly, they don't have to do mental bookkeeping when they're standardized on one license. (Bookkeeping = keeping track of stuff. It's work.)

Ditto BSD, for a smaller extent and smaller number of people.

Since RepRap was seeded as GPL, any non-GPL improvements, etc. incur these bookkeeping costs. Forrest's approach works, because his stuff can go BSD->GPL, once we incorporate it. GPL is sticky, so we can't go GPL->BSD, or GPL->Can't_Use_this_unless_you_are_vegan, or GPL->one_of_the_random_various_numerous_copyleft_licenses_that_are_difficult_to_keep_track_of.

---

Note: this thread is mental work and bookkeeping. I'm going to go play in the snow, or maybe do some research.

SebastienBailard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Aside from the self-fabricating nature of a
> RepRap, and all that, this is a bikeshed problem.


I'm not sure everyone would agree..

Read Richard Stallman's analysis.

According to his thoughts and my interpretation, I can legally circuit designer and create an identically operating circuit so long as I don't copy the exact expression of the original circuit diagram. It gets even less clear once one starts considering fair use and whether that can be prevent legal issues with GPL.

And also, just to be clear, according to how I'm reading the GPL licensing on the RepRap site, it confirms this as only applying to the software component and data file component of the RepRap project; except for the bit of deviation where it talks about the teardrop 'device', let alone the concepts "FFF", "Fused Filament Fabrication" which I'm fairly confident would be tossed out of any copyright court as unenforcable copyright (These are patentable ideas; the concepts can not be copyrighted..) It does seem weird because it seems to make an assumption or confusion about copyright rights vs. trademark rights vs. patent rights...

And... it still leaves unclear whether the RepRap team or contributors can define how the hardware created from their expressions (model files, software, etc.) can be used at this level? -- I create a RepRap clone, write and fill it with my own software -- I sell it, and withhold all RepRap data and source, and my own reverse engineered source code. I think I'm in untested legal grounds for copyright enforcement, if Bath University or Dr. Boyer, or Ed decides to challenge me for infringing on their copyright.

I lived in South Africa during apartheid and the sanctions and embargoes of the 1980's and early 1990's. We had a saying. An embargo means a 30% surcharge. We needed American torpedoes, we got them from the Israelis at cost plus 30%. We needed another Mirage III to replace one we lost in Angola? One "crashed" in a remote part of the Andes and it showed up on the Durban harbour docks a few months later in disassembled and shipped in sealed containers.

The point is that if somebody decides to get around GPL, they will. It will cost them a bit more, but get around it they will.

That's why I release all of my stuff via BSD. It doesn't make a pretense that there is some foolproof way to protect intellectual property. It just gives it away with the proviso that you get it "as is".

I loathe doing business that assumes that at some point I will be threatening people with lawyers.

---

-------------------------------------------------------

Hell, there are no rules here - we're trying to accomplish something.

Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.

Thomas A. Edison

Forest,

To put it bluntly your post makes absolutely no sense to me. At least you didn't mention nazis (godwin's law) but otherwise it seems like a "godwin's" post. Of course criminals break the law, I don't see what possible relevance that has on license selection... Last I checked the apartheid government was no longer in place in south africa so I don't really see that as an example of anything anyway, except perhaps how to run a brutal, corrupt and ineffectual regime that cannot be sustained indefinitely; again that seems far afield from selecting a license for reprap.

The point of the license, GPL, or whatever for reprap should be in my view to achieve several things:

1) Sustainability, the "share and share alike" aspect to the GPL and certain creative commons options is crucial to the long term sustainability of a main stream open source project. You can like or dislike the GPL but I think after closing in on 25 years it has shown that is a success in supporting projects that live a long time and prosper.

There are a few other licenses that have done well in that time but by any measure (lines of code, person, project counts, etc) the GPL has created the eco-system of what is fundamentally open source. Crucially it also shows growth, everyday there is more contributed than the day before and by virtue of the license's share and share alike provisions there is no way to un-gpl those contributions, they are everyone's in perpetuity.

2) Ensure that a low barrier of entry exists to participate in the project. In pure software the GPL on it's face basically achieves this. However in the rep-rap case there is the physical dimension that I personally don't think is adequately addressed. There is a psuedo-proprietary element to requiring specialized non-commodity parts to build the device. Granted creating the parts is not monopoly controlled but it still is the primary thing holding back much stronger growth of the rep-rap.

I really think some kind of build-one share-one provision, even if honorary would go a long way towards furthering the project. I.e if you choose to build a reprap and succeed you are obligated to contribute one set of parts to some sort of organization who can distribute them (then that person is obligated when they build one, etc). This is informal today, a more formalized approach, particular where people could self-identify as having contributed parts would be a huge motivator. Most online projects have shown that as strange as it may seem "reputation" is far more valuable to many participants than pure financial motivation, just look at wikipedia. To me repstraps are not an adequate solution because they unnecessarily increase the barrier to entry for no practical purpose.

3) I can't think of any open source license that encumbers "work product" created by the licensed system to also fall under some kind of license. This certainly happens in the proprietary sphere. Unequivocally I am against this with the reprap, whatever you design/make and print is yours to do with as you please with the exception of the build and share notion above.

4) Is the GPL suited to non-software (cad, images, etc). In short the answer is NO. The answer is creative commons share and share alike which I think could arguably be stated as a GPL for non-software digital articles.

5) If the notion of build and build-alike is to be implemented, a whole new license/contract needs to be effectuated. I think it has the potential to be as ground breaking as the GPL was for software but for open hardware. Maybe someone has already done it, I haven't seen it yet.

Finally I am not looking to start any sort of "flame war" but I do look forward to passionate discussion both for and against my stated positions.

In a few hours, this thread will get moved to "Library Administration, Announcements, and Policy".

---

-Sebastien, RepRap.org library gnome.

---

Remember, you're all RepRap developers (once you've joined the super-secret developer mailing list), and the wiki, RepRap.org, [reprap.org] is for everyone and everything!

As GPL applies only to software, I agree that the RepRap License page could add clarification and explicitly exclude (or include) RepRap printed components as an explicit clarification to the license. At least then the line will have been drawn and we can just carry on. It already seems pretty clear there that the license covers source code, models, images, data, etc. -- stuff you can download/copy from the internet. It only seems silent on the stuff you can 'copy' on your machine itself.

The biggest reason being, that the plastic printed parts could possibly be argued to be a representations of the same underlying work -- in the same way that copyright extends from printed words in a book to a voice tape recording of someone reading those words.

--

I did want to comment the the points goinreverse wrote all seem valid; it seems to me that either GPL or BSD style licenses fall into the same category when compared to the goals stated (Much of Linux includes BSD style licensing too, so it's hard to argue whether BSD or GPL has a greater following..)

Fundamentally, it seems a philosophical choice -- are you obligated to ensure others have the same freedom as you for modifications you've made to free stuff, or can you choose to release added value without giving others that advantage... One has greater intent to produce freedom, the other engages a larger population... In which world does greater (software) freedom ring? I'm not sure there can or will ever exist a solid answer.

SebastienBailard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Since RepRap was seeded as GPL, any non-GPL
> improvements, etc. incur these bookkeeping costs.
> Forrest's approach works, because his stuff can go
> BSD->GPL, once we incorporate it. GPL is sticky,
> so we can't go GPL->BSD, or
> GPL->Can't_Use_this_unless_you_are_vegan, or
> GPL->one_of_the_random_various_numerous_copyleft_l
> icenses_that_are_difficult_to_keep_track_of.

Technically, I believe the original author can change the license however he likes. He owns the rights. He would only be prevented from retroactively changing the license to work available and published outside the realm of his control... So, should Dr. Boyer and/or the university deem it, they could replace the GPL license for the existing web site with a weaker license (and also a stronger one, but it would be much harder to enforce given that the cat is out of the bag.)


> Note: this thread is mental work and bookkeeping.
> I'm going to go play in the snow, or maybe do some
> research.

I have to fill up my spare time waiting for parts to be delivered for my next batch of hardware development. So, now you're saying I'll have one more forum I'll have to watch? ;-)

goinreverse Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Forest,
>
> To put it bluntly your post makes absolutely no
> sense to me.
>
Pity... The point is simple enough.

---

-------------------------------------------------------

Hell, there are no rules here - we're trying to accomplish something.

Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.

Thomas A. Edison

-- moved topic --

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2010 01:29AM by stephen george.

Technically, I believe the original author can change the license however he likes.
Adrian can re-release his contributions under other licenses. But not everyone else's. We could all decide to re-release under MIT, but that's about as likely as all the air molecules in a room all deciding to be in on one corner of it, leaving a hypothetical linux user gasping for air and ... slightly annoyed.

I don't see us doing this.

---

I have to fill up my spare time waiting for parts to be delivered for my next batch of hardware development. So, now you're saying I'll have one more forum I'll have to watch? ;-)
If you work in the kitchen, you get more of a say in what dinner tastes like, and you can make sure everyone washed their hands.

---

Regarding RepRap's license, I'm pretty glad we went GPL. This means we don't have to deal with people running off and forking stuff and having those forks be non-GPL, and non-reintregrable with RepRap.

---

Gears should be LGPL, right?

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2010 09:56PM by SebastienBailard.

>> Regarding RepRap's license, I'm pretty glad we went GPL. This means we don't have to deal with people running off and forking stuff and having those forks be non-GPL, and non-reintregrable with RepRap.

Just curious, why is this a large concern? Do you have any case studies with the BSD style license where there were significant or serious problems for the open sourcers when companies used BSD source for proprietary systems?

In RepRap's case, there's been a slight but detectable tendency for developers to 'fork', that is to host their electronics, parts files, documentation, firmware, software, repstraps, and resultant users off site.

This is also true of blog.reprap.org, which is sometimes only hosts 'teaser' links to offsite content.

The latter is rather innocuous, although it means that "content" - projects, parts, arts, and docs are ending up offsite, and RepRap.org is stewarding links, rather than content that can get polished wiki-style.

The former is revolting and unethical, inasmuch as it deliberately attempts to fork the community of our fellow RepRap user-developers, who have to wander around trying to find projects, parts, arts, and docs. It diverts energy and people away from the main project for self-interest, and it bugs the fuck out of me how hard these people work to be #2 in the GPL 3D printing community, rather than working closely together with RepRap to be #1, while setting up really polished webstores to cover their personal financial needs.

It is completely selfish behavior, and I am absolutely certain the project would be much worse with a weaker license. (This is why RMS wrote the GPL - he got badly screwed over by colleagues, and wanted to make sure it never happened to him or anyone else ever again.)

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/28/2010 12:53AM by SebastienBailard.

Although I'm a newbie and haven't even assembled my first reprap yet (I'm waiting for the electronics), I'd like to chime in as well.

I don't think the world needs another license for the lawyers to study, the current mix of GPL and CC-BY-SA seems to work just fine, and it is probably impossible change by now, for exactly the reasons mentioned above.

Just to clarify on matters about circumventing GPL: The GPL is legally being circumvented daily, the most notable examples are NVidea and ATI. To go further and claim - in a new license - that the items produced on a reprapper must be shared, in effect saying "material property laws does not apply to objects created by the reprapper" will probably not be legally binding in quite a few countries and flies against the much touted Kartik M. Gada Humanitarian Innovation Prize.

As for forking, and forks which has infested the Darwin/Mendel wiki has been - and still is - the absolutely most frustrating part for me. In fear of sliding this thread of topic, I'll try to elaborate:

Some forking will be inevitable, but for RepRap the level of forking has been the single most confusing thing, when trying to come to understand the project. I believe the culprit to be: "Shortage of parts", where ever there is a shortage, somebody will step in and turn a profit.

The shortage seems to be in two areas: PCB/Electronics and printed parts.

I believe that - as goinginreverse suggested - a rating system, where people who has donated parts for redistribution would help, similar to the 1.1 upload ratio of bittorrent, although a fractional number of parts for a reprapper is probably not practical, and 1 seems to be too low a number.

As for PCB/Electronics, I don't understand the need (I can see why it would be interesting, but I don't understand why it is a must) to go for specialized electronics, it will only create shortages, until such time as the Mendel or Mendel+1 is capable of creating the PCB's, I think that accepting higher cost and increased complexity by using several std. Arduino and Arduino compatible components is the only way to go for now.

As I see it, lack of parts, is the primary reason behind forking, and forking is probably the single most greatest threat to this project. If most people have a MakerBot or a RapMan or any other fork, most of the creative efforts will go into that machine.

To cut it short I suggest:
1) Keep the current licensing combo of GPL and CC-BY-SA, or maybe go for CC-BY-ND if that can be done at this stage.
2) Clarify the licensing policy by having a "License" link on the front page, like most other projects.
3) Setup a reputation system, like goinginreverse suggested, where people who do good things for the community gain reputation, e.g. take a look at "stackoverflow", where gaining reputation point is almost like playing a computer game.
4) Setup a web-app where people can request and supply parts either directly from peer to peer or via some intermediary.
5) Setup a small team to get rid of the custom PCB's, so - atleast - the core Mendel can operate on some "std." model of Arduino(s), where there is a greater supply of PCB's

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/28/2010 03:12AM by anton.

We do have to shelve the license issue, I don't see anything changing. I need to think about the electronics more carefully.

I believe that - as goinginreverse suggested - a rating system, where people who has donated parts for redistribution would help, similar to the 1.1 upload ratio of bittorrent, although a fractional number of parts for a reprapper is probably not practical, and 1 seems to be too low a number.

Difficult to enforce, and lots of work at today's replication rate. I prefer something with narrative power:
[objects.reprap.org]

---

These guys have been talking about making selling mendel parts more efficient through a web tender system.
[dev.forums.reprap.org]

---

I'm hoping that the casting moldmaking crew will help on the lack of parts issue.

---

forking is probably the single most greatest threat to this project.

Yeah, but it's just friction. The parasites can't really kill the host in RepRap's case.

---

Setup a reputation system, like goinginreverse suggested, where people who do good things for the community gain reputation, e.g. take a look at "stackoverflow", where gaining reputation point is almost like playing a computer game.

There are some ui changes we can make to the forums and wiki that will help, along with offering personal blog-like homepages with ("favorited by 158 people, working on project x, etc., recently uploaded y". If we could have had thingiverse built into RepRap.org , that would have helped immensely. As it is, we'll bootstrap a lot of things, like showcasing user research and projects on the front page, and massive ui improvements I need to hash out conceptually.

Also, once we take a good look at the RUGs, and we've made it easier to generate them, I'll start announcing them on the blog, which will boost uptake and then we'll see more one-to-many mendel stuff at the RUG leve.

SebastienBailard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In RepRap's case, there's been a slight but
> detectable tendency for developers to 'fork', that
> is to host their electronics, parts files,
> documentation, firmware, software, repstraps, and
> resultant users off site.

This feels completely separate from licensing issues. Nothing about GPL requires that the forks people make exist on the reprap site. As long as they provide the source in some form or fashion to people they give stuff to, GPL is satisfied. For all it specifies, they can provide the source for their derivative on CD when they ship the object code to be used on their hardware..., rather than linking to the RepRap site. Are you trying to solve different problems by making assumptions about what GPL requires?

In this regard, GPL does not seem to gain anything over BSD .... I'm not advocating it switch to BSD, just noting that the legal issues surrounding the RepRap intellectial property seems separate from the organizer's/designer's wishes about controlling and distributing the content using a more centralized repository.

SebastienBailard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Gears should be LGPL, right?
>
If I recall correctly, I did the original involute profile gear script for AoI which I called...

Experimental Involute Profile Gear.bsh

I release using BSD and that piece of work derived from nothing that had gone before in Reprap.

BSD puts no real obligations on the creators of derivate work, so derivations could be released under GPL.

Mind, Enrique Perez created...

gearweaver.bsh

which, I suspect but don't really care, derives from my script. I don't know what sort of software license that Enrique uses. You'd have to check with him.

The whole BSD/GPL argument, I suspect, hinges on exactly what constitutes Reprap and Reprap-derived work and what does not. While a core Reprap team member, I've been excoriated relentlessly over the years for not operating within the mainstream. As a result, I tend to see what I've done that has to do with 3D printing as constituting a separate development and adopted BSD for releasing it simply because I loathe the prospect of threatening people with lawyers.

Some of my innovations have been folded into the mainstream Reprap technology and many have not. I'm always pleased with the mainstream development thread of Reprap finds something that I've done to be useful. I don't think that the mainstream's predilection for GPL encumbers anybody who wants to derive directly from my own publications, however.

---

-------------------------------------------------------

Hell, there are no rules here - we're trying to accomplish something.

Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.

Thomas A. Edison

This feels completely separate from licensing issues. Nothing about GPL requires that the forks people make exist on the reprap site. As long as they provide the source in some form or fashion to people they give stuff to, GPL is satisfied. For all it specifies, they can provide the source for their derivative on CD when they ship the object code to be used on their hardware..., rather than linking to the RepRap site. Are you trying to solve different problems by making assumptions about what GPL requires?

Nope. I'm not making assumptions. I'm glad stuff gets into the GPL commons any which way and in any space people choose to upload it.

But, on the other hand, trying to keep track of that stuff and integrate it with RepRap's community and hardware, so that it's "under the RepRap umbrella", is rather difficult. And when people create spaces for contributions to the commons away from [reprap.org] then community, eyeballs, and contributions follow that energy. Which makes it utterly harder to integrate into RepRap.org's projects, community, etc. Which is why I rant about it, as I will take the liberty to do here.

It is work to upload to two sites, maintain your stuff on two sites. Which is why most RepRap "core" developers don't use RepRap for their parts, preojects, arts, and docs, aside from checking stuff into svn. Instead, they're using thingiverse, a fancy bitkeeper+youtube site done up by Zach, RRRF treasurer and director, only thingiverse is a for-profit site parked at a non-reprap.org url, and Adrian doesn't care that 98%+ of RepRap research and development energy isn't at RepRap.org right now. Considering he's project lead, he's made little effort to make people that do stuff like [www.thingiverse.com]
feel welcome. That, and the currently hostile-to-users setup of the mediawiki means that people go where there is community, things are easy to upload, and people pay attention to your contributions.

My vision of the RepRap.org site is a site where everyone is welcome to work on their projects, not just Adrian and his 2-3 students. Unfortunately, if people maintain their reprap+non-reprap 3D printer stuff elsewhere, then it is work for them to maintain a second copy of just their reprap stuff on RepRap.org. Which is why people like Vik Oliver keep their extruders on Thingiverse. On the other hand, Wade came up with a different extruder and uploaded it to the mediwiki a few days ago [objects.reprap.org]
which is great! But it highlights the fact that we're using two CMSs and community to do RepRap stuff and thingiverse currently has better functionality and all the users because it is a superset of RepRap.org parts. (That is to say, it is RepRap and everything else.)

This is the pickle we're in and we're already using the GPL. I imagine if we'd gone BSD, we'd be looking at forks that encapsulate and incorporate RepRap stuff, and maintained under standard restrictive generic copyright. As it is, forking user-developers are obliged to GPL stuff.

If we'd gone BSD, we'd have left ourselves open to selfish action, and possibly ended up trailing 'selfish forkers'. Since we're GPL, we're always the 'true project', and no one else can do more than mirror us.

In this regard, GPL does not seem to gain anything over BSD .... I'm not advocating it switch to BSD, just noting that the legal issues surrounding the RepRap intellectial property seems separate from the organizer's/designer's wishes about controlling and distributing the content using a more centralized repository.

Adrian doesn't really care how stuff gets out there, as long as it contributes to a usable technology base for RepRap.org (GPL). That means its our job to figure out how to welcome, nurture, incorporate, and present RepRap user-developer contributions and community. Right now the RepRap site doesn't do that, and instead nigh-deliberately streams user contributions offsite! And I think that stinks. If user-developer don't feel welcome to contribute to RepRap.org, or the site shows contempt and disregard for their contributions then the RepRap.org website and community fails this mission.

Forrest: While a core Reprap team member, I've been excoriated relentlessly over the years for not operating within the mainstream. As a result, I tend to see what I've done that has to do with 3D printing as constituting a separate development and adopted BSD for releasing it simply because I loathe the prospect of threatening people with lawyers.

No, no, you must march in lockstep with the rest of us!

I mean, ... we need to do a better job of engaging folk like you, Forrest.

---

-Sebastien, RepRap.org library gnome.

---

Remember, you're all RepRap developers (once you've joined the super-secret developer mailing list), and the wiki, RepRap.org, [reprap.org] is for everyone and everything!

SebastienBailard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No, no, you must march in lockstep with the rest
> of us!
>
> I mean, ... we need to do a better job of engaging
> folk like you, Forrest.
>

My Gawd! You sound like our beloved President, viz, if I only understood what Reprap is on about I would fall into agreement with the canon of strongly held Reprap verities.

LOL! Do you realise how patronising that sounds?

---

-------------------------------------------------------

Hell, there are no rules here - we're trying to accomplish something.

Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.

Thomas A. Edison